Alan, I haven't seen Anthony or anybody else derive the Aryan branch from the Corded Ware Culture. Aryan branch has always been located in the steppe. Please present a direct quote if you still claim this.

Quote from: Jean M

As I understand it neither Baltic nor Slavic actually spread with Corded Ware. It is more a question of a "Northwest Indo-European" dialect spreading with Corded Ware, to be later overlain in large areas by waves from the Middle Dnieper (and from Jutland).

It looks like I meant this... Unless you mean that Balto-Slavic is not a descendant of Northwest Indo-European.

Quote from: Jean M

Fatyanovo (3200 BC-2300 BC), has been linked with Proto-Baltic. The spread into the the region now Baltic-speaking came later. As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another. Andersen 2003 discusses this.

Yes, that is a recurring phenomenon.Proto-Baltic is too young a stage to be connected with Fatyanovo, say the linguists. Archaeologists have still presented views like that, but we have Proto-Baltic loanwords in Middle Proto-Finnic at the 1st millennium BC; Proto-Baltic loanwords are contemporaneous with Palaeo-Germanic and Early Proto-Germanic loanwords. Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords are dated at the 2nd millennium BC.

Quote from: Jean M

I don't know how you feel about the 'Old European Hydronymy', but it seems to me possible that "Northwest Indo-European" could explain some of this.

Everything is possible – that hydronymy layer seems to be open for many interpretations...

I agree entirely that CW is the result of steppe influences filtering through the Late Cucuteni settlements. I have been saying this all along, following Anthony. It is not news.

However Anthony is not "essentially saying that Baltic, Slavic, Indic, Iranian and NW IE were spread by non-steppe steppe-influenced central/north European natives." That is lunatic fringe stuff with which I don't imagine that Anthony would wish to be tarred. I can't speak for him of course, but I certainly don't see him as associated with or supporting in any way the European Aryan "Hitler was right" Manic Front. He would scarcely command the respect in the field that he has if he were so associated.

The people of the west-east movement into Sintashta had nothing to do with central/north Europe. CW spread into Central and North Europe, not out of it. The west-east movement you mention was just part of the Yamnaya/Cucuteni melting pot that spilled over east of the Urals. From there it became the Asian steppe cultures of Sintashta, expanding into Andronovo. These people did not, repeat not, come from North Europe. Anthony says where they came from - the Yamnaya/Cucuteni melting pot. That is where CW began.

At the same time CW was moving north. It is not earliest in Poland. Essentially it springs from Yamnaya moving northwards. (Sigh)

Alan - you are coming into this late. These arguments have been raging for years. They have been very ugly at times. I'm bored rigid with clash after clash on this topic. I can't give any more time to it. I'm trying to write a report. Sorry.

I will not be posting here again.

fair enough you have your views and you have set them out and have some interesting ideas and now need to finish writing them up formally. I look forward to reading getting a copy. However, there are many other views and this is a topic which will probably be being debated for a long while yet. So there is such thing as late in the game unless you are applying your own timetable universally. The game is already many generations old and even I have been interested in it for over a quarter of a century. The game is not just going to be done and dusted by anyones timescale. People enjoy debating this and will go on doing so at their own pace until it is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. We are not at that stage yet. We may be by the end of the decade if ancient DNA testing mushrooms but its not reached the stage where this issue is solved so the debate will go on. Where there is doubt there will always be debate.

Regarding your other points I totally agree that CW didnt originate in northern Europe. Southern Poland was where the earliest dates come from and that has been known for years. Thats pretty well near the Carpathians not a million miles from in the farmers-Kurgan melting pot zone of Anthony. I wouldnt be surprised if it is to the south of that even closer to the melting pot zone near the west end of the steppes. I dont think I disagree with any of that. Eastern influences or people (or a bit of both) did move west in the formation of Corded Ware. However that is another issue and does not detract from and is not incompatible with the fact that it then spread both east (and north) and west and that Anthony has named a chain of Corded Ware rooted cultural fissions heading from the melting pot area eastwards as formative in the roots of Baltic, Indic, Iranian, Slavic etc. Pointing that out is not saying that corded ware is not utimately steppe derived. It may well be. All I am saying is proving it is steppe derived and gaining consensus on that is vital for the steppes model because its clear that a heck of a lot of languages are attributed to corded ware and chain of derived fission cultures heading east. Only ancient DNA in considerable quantity across many cultures is going to actually prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The Corded Ware Culture (R1a-Z283) represents the first major wave of R1a into Central and Northern Europe and is almost certainly derived from Yamnaya (R1a-Z645). The Indo-Iranians (Aryans) on the other hand are derived from the Sintashta Culture (by way of Abashevo) and are best represented by R1a-Z93. Northern Europe from a genetics viewpoint had nothing to do with the Central Eurasian cultures down to the Andronovo Horizon. There were however (in all likelyhood) some hunter-gatherer bands of R1a (M417, M17) in Northwestern Europe prior to the arrival of Corded Ware wandering around. But the bulk of modern R1a in Europe and Asia (Z284, Z280, M458, L342 etc) all can trace their roots back to the Yamnaya Horizon not Northern Europe.

fair enough you have your views and you have set them out and have some interesting ideas and now need to finish writing them up formally.

I said I wouldn't post here again, but I see that I should clarify. I am not writing my book currently. It is written. Text has been with the publisher since the end of September. The illustrators are at work.

I am writing a building history report. A lot of things got put on hold for the book, which I now need to catch up on. Naturally my absence from this forum will not prevent the swirl of debate. It might even encourage it. I get the feeling that the way I go round stamping on romance is a bit of a damper at times. Have fun! :)

The Corded Ware Culture (R1a-Z283) represents the first major wave of R1a into Central and Northern Europe and is almost certainly derived from Yamnaya (R1a-Z645). The Indo-Iranians (Aryans) on the other hand are derived from the Sintashta Culture (by way of Abashevo) and are best represented by R1a-Z93. Northern Europe from a genetics viewpoint had nothing to do with the Central Eurasian cultures down to the Andronovo Horizon. There were however (in all likelyhood) some hunter-gatherer bands of R1a (M417, M17) in Northwestern Europe prior to the arrival of Corded Ware wandering around. But the bulk of modern R1a in Europe and Asia (Z284, Z280, M458, L342 etc) all can trace their roots back to the Yamnaya Horizon not Northern Europe.

All we know is that R1a was present in a bunch of later steppe cultures associated with IE language branches. However, read Anthony and he states that this group of languages is associated with a chain of cultures that headed east from almost west of the steppes and who had eastern corded ware roots. That means IMO that we cannot rule out any of those cultures as having R1a as a result of their corded ware origins. OK corded ware and R1a itself may have steppes roots but seeing it as a steppes migration is not accepted orthodoxy at present and there is no clinching evidence which means it simply has to be true. In balance there is some reasonably negative evidence that suggests R1a may have moved from the steppes but there is a massive hole in the tiny sample of ancient DNA and it is far from proven. All that is needed now is a systematic campaign of ancient yDNA testing across eastern European and neighbouring cultures so we have a handful or so for each culture and we can have more confidence. I think now its a matter of ancient DNA. Nothing else is going to resolve this issue. The current sample is far too patchy and small to conclude much.

I think now its a matter of ancient DNA. Nothing else is going to resolve this issue.

I don't think it's going to resolve yours unless the ancient DNA is from the spit on the rim of an ancient piece of pottery. But even that may happen.

Anyway, I believe T101 is one of our Russian colleagues from the MolGen site, and I'm glad to see him here. He has just posted an interesting (but hard to interpret) graphic on the little-used R1a forum here. Maybe that group will come to life -- or its few Anglo-American participants can migrate to MolGen, where R1a has been active (in English) for months.

Those are examples of individuals or group of individuals on one side and a complete society on the other side interacting, but we are discussing the shifting of languages by a society interacting with another society.

I am talking about language shift and the reasons for it. I am not confining myself to talking about one nation interacting with another nation. That is not the situation that occurs generally when a language moves right across an entire continent in prehistory.

I don think you are right about that, I would say that, on the contrary, that is what occurs generally. In fact, I find very difficult to explain how a language shift can happen in a given population that remains in place, unlike your examples, that would be the most usual situation.

fair enough you have your views and you have set them out and have some interesting ideas and now need to finish writing them up formally.

I said I wouldn't post here again, but I see that I should clarify. I am not writing my book currently. It is written. Text has been with the publisher since the end of September. The illustrators are at work.

I am writing a building history report. A lot of things got put on hold for the book, which I now need to catch up on. Naturally my absence from this forum will not prevent the swirl of debate. It might even encourage it. I get the feeling that the way I go round stamping on romance is a bit of a damper at times. Have fun! :)

Congratulations! We are proud of you and can't wait to see the finished product.

the thing that just hit me like a ton of bricks is that the saetem group are a west to east spread of cultures with strong corded ware roots and who followed more the forest steppe than the steppes. That makes the whole saetem group and history of R1a hang on what the nature of corded ware was.

I began to think of an r1a1a origin in eastern Central Europe when I saw the cranial map of mesolithic-neolithic-metal age west eurasians. That map showed a dichotomy in the CW, with the German-Polish CW being more neolithic like. So how much yamnaya demic input actually went into the GPCW?!? Obviously r1a1a was in the GPCW and it could have spread eastwards from there, along with linguist influence.

But when you suggested that the D-D gave r1b to C-T, I realized that r1b could fill the steppes largely devoid of r1a1a. An awesome bonus is that it would explain the dominance of r1b in the west with a centum connection in the east, ie early migrations from steppes.

the thing that just hit me like a ton of bricks is that the saetem group are a west to east spread of cultures with strong corded ware roots and who followed more the forest steppe than the steppes. That makes the whole saetem group and history of R1a hang on what the nature of corded ware was.

I began to think of an r1a1a origin in eastern Central Europe when I saw the cranial map of mesolithic-neolithic-metal age west eurasians. That map showed a dichotomy in the CW, with the German-Polish CW being more neolithic like. So how much yamnaya demic input actually went into the GPCW?!? Obviously r1a1a was in the GPCW and it could have spread eastwards from there, along with linguist influence.

But when you suggested that the D-D gave r1b to C-T, I realized that r1b could fill the steppes largely devoid of r1a1a. An awesome bonus is that it would explain the dominance of r1b in the west with a centum connection in the east, ie early migrations from steppes.

I think one thing that is pretty clear from all of this is the steppes-farmer contact zone around the Carpathians was incredibly important in the creation of new cultures that blended steppes and other traditions. In Anthony's own model it was just such groups (in this case corded ware derivatives) that actually in spreading east formed the root of many of the IE branches in an immediate sense (I am not talking about even deeper roots here). I find it very odd the way so many IE languages have a link to Corded Ware and whatever CW's nature it clearly was the main vector of spread of IE across an enormous swath of Europe and Asia. Something in the nature of CW allowed it to spread dramatically in a way that pure steppes cultures could not. The clue is probably in the fact that the spread of cultures with CW elements eastwards followed a different eco-zone from the true steppes - it cut a swathe though the forrest steppes before passing beyond them and into Asia ultimately. The transformation involved in the genesis of CW seems to have involved a mixing of TRB and steepe ideas. The real question is can we say for sure which one the R1a y lineage was derived from. How many y-lineages (something very different from autosomal DNA) from cultures like TRB or its possible central European middle Neolithic ancestors do we have? Ridiculously few to conclude anything.

Really, all we need now is the extension of ancient yDNA extraction to give a decent sample of eastern European yDNA across the complex of cultures that occupied that area from the Neolithic to copper age. That is not going to happen over night but I would hope the obvious possibility of this solving the IE origin problem for once and for all will get some money thrown at it and the answers will start to become clear over the next 5 years.

We found that the most ancient R1a sub- clades (R1a1-M198− and R1a1a-M198+/M417−) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp. R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage re- covered and began expanding ~4575 ybp.

I find that summary interesting. In particular the idea that the earliest branch of R1a is spread from the Balkans across northern Europe well before the Kurgan intrusions. That strongly suggests to me that R1a was in or in the path of the Neolithic spread when farming spread into Northern Europe. The main earliest Neolithic culture of northern continental Europe was TRB which is found earliest in south Poland and may have roots Lengyel of east central Europe. All of this does suggest the possibility that R1a was somewhere in the farming part of eastern Europe by at least c. 5000BC and perhaps 6000BC. This of course raises the question of when R1a got into the steppes. It is often assumed that it is a native steppes hunter gatherer clade but is this a safe assumption. Do we know for sure it wasnt some group from non-steppe eastern Europe who were farming by 5 or 6000BC and only entered the steppes with the spread of farming influences? I think Anatole's new paper could be interpreted that way.

We found that the most ancient R1a sub- clades (R1a1-M198− and R1a1a-M198+/M417−) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp. R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage re- covered and began expanding ~4575 ybp.

I find that summary interesting. In particular the idea that the earliest branch of R1a is spread from the Balkans across northern Europe well before the Kurgan intrusions. That strongly suggests to me that R1a was in or in the path of the Neolithic spread when farming spread into Northern Europe. The main earliest Neolithic culture of northern continental Europe was TRB which is found earliest in south Poland and may have roots Lengyel of east central Europe. All of this does suggest the possibility that R1a was somewhere in the farming part of eastern Europe by at least c. 5000BC and perhaps 6000BC. This of course raises the question of when R1a got into the steppes. It is often assumed that it is a native steppes hunter gatherer clade but is this a safe assumption. Do we know for sure it wasnt some group from non-steppe eastern Europe who were farming by 5 or 6000BC and only entered the steppes with the spread of farming influences? I think Anatole's new paper could be interpreted that way.

In the paper, he has the most upstream branches as M198- and M198+. M198- hints at a forest-steppe or at least an eastern origin for R1a on Map 1. M198+ is all central and western European. If the Balkan neolithic included R1a, it seems like it would be found with G2a in the aDNA. Nor has G2a, been found in the east with IE derived peoples so far. It looks like these hg's entered Europe from different directions. As usual, we need more samples to get a better reading on it.

I think it is more likely that pre-Old European R1a moved from the south, but arrived near the north Caspian/Volga regions. From there, they mostly avoided the steppe foragers at this time and moved into the forest-steppe towards NW Europe (L664+). It might help to see if any of the dna or isotopes from animal remains like sheep, goats, horses, etc. would indicate this route.

It might help to see if any of the dna or isotopes from animal remains like sheep, goats, horses, etc. would indicate this route.

I think there was a DNA study a couple of years ago indicating that the most popular edible frogs in France were of Volga origin. Somebody like Didier or Bernard who read the actual study might know. I just saw a couple of posts about it on the French part of DNA Forums, and don't have that now to review for a source.

We found that the most ancient R1a sub- clades (R1a1-M198− and R1a1a-M198+/M417−) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp, and possibly 9000 ybp. R1a’s three principal downstream subclades, L664 (North-Western branch), Z93 (South-Eastern branch), and Z283 (Eurasian branch), split from their common European ancestor at about the same time, around 7000 - 6000 ybp. L664 apparently stayed in North-Western Europe; its lineage re- covered and began expanding ~4575 ybp.

I find that summary interesting. In particular the idea that the earliest branch of R1a is spread from the Balkans across northern Europe well before the Kurgan intrusions. That strongly suggests to me that R1a was in or in the path of the Neolithic spread when farming spread into Northern Europe. The main earliest Neolithic culture of northern continental Europe was TRB which is found earliest in south Poland and may have roots Lengyel of east central Europe. All of this does suggest the possibility that R1a was somewhere in the farming part of eastern Europe by at least c. 5000BC and perhaps 6000BC. This of course raises the question of when R1a got into the steppes. It is often assumed that it is a native steppes hunter gatherer clade but is this a safe assumption. Do we know for sure it wasnt some group from non-steppe eastern Europe who were farming by 5 or 6000BC and only entered the steppes with the spread of farming influences? I think Anatole's new paper could be interpreted that way.

In the paper, he has the most upstream branches as M198- and M198+. M198- hints at a forest-steppe or at least an eastern origin for R1a on Map 1. M198+ is all central and western European. If the Balkan neolithic included R1a, it seems like it would be found with G2a in the aDNA. Nor has G2a, been found in the east with IE derived peoples so far. It looks like these hg's entered Europe from different directions. As usual, we need more samples to get a better reading on it.

I think it is more likely that pre-Old European R1a moved from the south, but arrived near the north Caspian/Volga regions. From there, they mostly avoided the steppe foragers at this time and moved into the forest-steppe towards NW Europe (L664+). It might help to see if any of the dna or isotopes from animal remains like sheep, goats, horses, etc. would indicate this route.

I did notice that the chain of cultures that Anthony sees moving from somewhere near the carpathians eastwards and forming the roots of Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Uranian avoided the steppe and travelled through the forrest steppe. That is obviously a different time and direction from what you are outlining but nevertheless it is noticeable that this environment was associated with this chain of cultures who are seen as ancestral to so many IE branches by Anthony. Now, forest steppe was the environment that the late eastern LBK, C-Tryp farmers and later the Corded Ware eastern groups were nibbled into at various times, avoiding the steppes themselves. The group of cultures that Anthony cites as thrusting west through the forest steppe and forming the basis of several IE language branches (all with R1a associations and all with Corded Ware roots to some degree) clearly were well adapted to/had a preference for the forrest steppe, almost perfectly avoiding the actual European steppe. Meanwhile in Anthony's model the only specific IE branches he connects to actual steppe cultural groups are actually Anatolian (Sovorovo) and some of the Centum groups in SE Europe and Celto-Italic. That seems rather weird to me. I hadnt really read his theories that closely until recently but now I have there is a lot of things that strike me as odd.

I actually think his complex model tends to somehow be morphed back to a more Gimutas type eastern hoards heading west model in peoples heads but that is not what Anthony is saying. He is sort of saying PIE started on the steppes then they influenced farming cultures who then thrust back east through the forrest steppe forming most of the known IE branches of eastern Europe and Asia. He seems to lean more towards the CW people as old farmers from the SE end of the TRB area around the Carpathians as having taken up steppe influences rather than CW people as steppe peoples who had taken up farming ideas in the interface zone. That of course is incredibly important to know because Anthony is pretty clear about the corded ware roots of these cultures who spread east through Russia forming the roots of several IE branches. If you put the fact Anthony saw Corded Ware as kurganised farmers with the fact that he points out the CW roots of the cultures he sees ancestral as Slavic, Baltic, Indo-Iranian etc then what that adds up to is that kurganised farmers heading east through the forest steppe is the root of so many IE languages. Now, given those branches are strongly associated with R1a today, that does question the idea that R1a was in the actual steppes before 3000BC.

Oddly, Anthony associated actual steppe cultures with the ancestors of the Anatolians and later the ancestors of the Celto-Italic peoples and perhaps Greek etc, all peoples who I would tend to think of as having stronger R1b associations.

I have no conclusions on all that but I think there are many paradoxes in Anthony's model. I also think people who have not actually read Anthony should not think his model is a nice simple fit for R1a as being very ancient hunter lineage on the steppes who became pastoral nomads and rampaged west (with those who stayed behind becoming the eastern IEs). That is 100% not what his model is saying. In fact he doesnt dabble a lot in genetics at all.

I also have to say I am a skeptic of the R1a Tarim Mummies as descendants of the Tocharians. There were several waves of IEs and I suspect they were a later Iranian wave and that Tocharian may have been brought by M73 R1b peoples who are also common in the area today. That would complete the strong centum R1b link seen elsewhere. That of course raised the whole question of where R1b was pre-4000BC. Again, I think this is very unclear. It could have been on the southern steppes, it could have been among the Bug-Dniester hunter groups absorbed into C-Tryp, it could have been, like Corded Ware, among farming elements around the Carpathians. I suspect there may be a lot of twists and surprises when ancient yDNA evidence reaches a reasonable level for the eastern European Neolithic and Copper Age.

You may be right. There are a lot of data holes to fill yet. I get the impression the spread of IE was more of a several centuries long kurganization-like process. Yes, there was the Suvorovo movement into the Balkans in 4200 which Anthony thinks brought proto-Anatolian and the the Yamnaya migration into the Hungarian Plain around 3100-2800. If we consider those movements of steppe people into farmer lands, there is still a gap between 4200-3300 where interaction or kurganization could take place. Looking at the Baden, Globular Amphora, Cotofeni, and Corded-Ware cultures seems like locals were adapting to a more variable lifestyle.

I think part of the reason the Suvorovo people by-passed the Cucuteni-Tripolye settlements is because the C-T people were already integrated with the early PIE speakers and weren't considered "others".

I did notice that the chain of cultures that Anthony sees moving from somewhere near the carpathians eastwards and forming the roots of Slavic, Baltic and Indo-Uranian avoided the steppe and travelled through the forrest steppe.

Alan, please give finally the exact quote from Anthony where he claims that Indo-Uranians or Indo-Neptunians (actually I mean Aryans = Indo-Iranians ;) ) are derived from the Corded Ware Culture.

As for Slavic - that burst out in all directions in the early Middle Ages, long after a large chunk of former CW territory had become Germanic. So there is a pattern of one IE dialect/language washing over another.

There's absolutely no evidence of any mass migration of Germanics from East Central Europe during the migration period. Modern DNA shows very clearly that this did not happen, with no signals being picked up by IBD or formal mixture tests.

Moreover, the "West Slavic" R1a-M458 is native to Central Europe, and spread into Ukraine and Belarus from the west.

You're confusing DNA with linguistics. Germanic, Slavic etc. are languages not races. There were East Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians) in Poland and neighboring areas that according seem to have arisen out of a long archaeological connection between Poland and Scandinavia. In this case, cultural diffusion to explain the presence of Germanic peoples in Poland makes sense archaeologically. We don't have to invoke mass migration.

You're confusing DNA with linguistics. Germanic, Slavic etc. are languages not races. There were East Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians) in Poland and neighboring areas that according seem to have arisen out of a long archaeological connection between Poland and Scandinavia. In this case, cultural diffusion to explain the presence of Germanic peoples in Poland makes sense archaeologically. We don't have to invoke mass migration.

I've never seen any evidence of Germanics in what is now Poland or even eastern Germany prior to the early middle ages.

No one really knows where Goths came from, and we won't know until we get some ancient DNA from verified Gothic remains.

Basically what I'm saying is that we don't know much at this stage, and a lot of the stuff about European prehistory and early history that has been published to date has been pure speculation. The fact that it's accepted by mainstream academia doesn't mean it's true.

I think it's time to wipe the slate clean, and asses all of the new information, like ancient DNA data, with a totally open mind.

You're confusing DNA with linguistics. Germanic, Slavic etc. are languages not races. There were East Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, Burgundians) in Poland and neighboring areas that according seem to have arisen out of a long archaeological connection between Poland and Scandinavia. In this case, cultural diffusion to explain the presence of Germanic peoples in Poland makes sense archaeologically. We don't have to invoke mass migration.

I've never seen any evidence of Germanics in what is now Poland or even eastern Germany prior to the early middle ages.

No one really knows where Goths came from, and we won't know until we get some ancient DNA from verified Gothic remains.

Basically what I'm saying is that we don't know much at this stage, and a lot of the stuff about European prehistory and early history that has been published to date has been pure speculation. The fact that it's accepted by mainstream academia doesn't mean it's true.

I think it's time to wipe the slate clean, and asses all of the new information, like ancient DNA data, with a totally open mind.

I'm not any expert, so I'll leave other posters (in particular the always excellent Jean M) to share their thoughts on this, but here goes.

Well, we don't have any written records. Germanics didn't learn how to write until after the 2nd century AD or so. But there is archaeological evidence for a strong Scandinavian (Jastorf, Nordic Bronze age etc.) influence on Northern and Western Poland around the time Germanic languages had or were forming, and many historians believe this reflects the migrations described in ancient sources of Vandals and Goths. See for example Kaliff, Anders. 2001. Gothic Connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC – 500 AD Also see the various Wikipedia articles on archaeological cultures during this time period. According to Wikipedia, it is believed that both migration and regional continuity created the cultures in Poland around the time of the Roman era, with certain burial types and structures thought to be indicative of Germanic and Gothic people, although the population density was low. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Circle_(Iron_Age) http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm

The non-partisan Encyclopedia of European people states on page 821 about the Vandals The Vandals are thought to have originated on the northern Jutland Peninsula in present-day Denmark, although some scholars, on the basis of similarity of place-names, place the ancestral group in Norway or Sweden. At some point, possibly as early as the fifth century B.C.E .but more likely in the second century B.C.E,the Vandals crossed the Baltic Sea to present-day northern Poland. They are associated by archaeologists with the Przeworsk culture of the Vistula-Oder region, characterized by burials of warriors with their full war panoply, including spurs, showing that, unlike many Germanic groups, Vandals,considered cavalry an important part of warfare.They perhaps were descended from the same ancestral group as the LUGII . By about 120 B.C.E .the Vandals made their home in the Sudeten Mountains of Silesia, a region mostly in what is now southwest Poland, with parts in the adjoining present-day Czech Republic and Germany

I'm not any expert, so I'll leave other posters (in particular the always excellent Jean M) to share their thoughts on this, but here goes.

Jean isn't an expert and she's far from excellent. Here's the latest from some experts...

Quote

Summary:

Research on the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, or research related to the cultural development of the areas inhabited by the Slavs, are a subject of considerable social interest and as such are a very important part of historical and archeological studies. In this research the results obtained with methods employed by physical anthropology must be used, or, which is becoming increasingly more common, with methods employed in molecular biology.In these project it was attempted to answer the question whether anthropological data (morphology of the cranium and odontological traits) support the model of population continuity or the model of population discontinuity of the land within the Odra and Vistula river basins at the turn of the eras.The purposes of the research were:(a) to describe morphological differentiation of human populations inhabiting the Odra and Vistula river basins in the period of Roman influence and in the Early Middle Ages, based on the cranial morphological traits and odontological traits (morphological features of permanent teeth),(b) to compare biological differentiation of the studied populations with the cultural differentiation degree determined on the basis of the analysis of variation in time and space of physical cultural artifacts obtained in the course of archaeological excavation work.Archaeological research carried out during highway construction provided new skeletal material from the Roman period from the region of Wielkopolska, Pomerania and Kujavia.The present research will include odontological materials from:- cemeteries from the Roman period – of the Wielbark culture population, in Kowalewko near Poznań, Rogowo near Toruń, and cemetery in Karczyn and Gąski near Inowrocław,- medieval cemeteries in Cedynia, Słaboszewo near Mogilno and Łekno near Wągrowiec.Materials from the above mentioned cemeteries were analyzed for 10 craniological traits and for the degree of development of 18 odontoglyphic traits. In the statistical procedure the principal components method and biological distance analysis were used. All odontological traits were recorded according to the methodology used in physical anthropology and described by Zubov and also by Turner for an ASU (Arizona State University) project, in the framework of the research project realized by Russian anthropologists and anthropologists from various countries in Asia and Central and Eastern Europe.A comparative analysis was carried out on the basis of differented populations from Central, East and North Europe.From literature the data on average adult life expectancy in populations from the Roman period (the Wielbark culture – 20 groups, 3089 individuals; the Przeworsk culture 10 groups, 542 individuals) and the eastern, western and southern Slavs, estimated by various authors have been used.Therefore, the hypothesis concerning the biological continuity of the settlement of the Oder and Vistula rivers basin at the turn of the Antiquity to the early Mediaeval times was positively verified.It also seems from the presented comparative data that the biological condition and dynamics of human populations in the Oder and the Vistula rivers basin in the Roman period were not significantly different from the biological condition and dynamics of the early medieval Slavic populations from this area.

Conclusions:1. In terms of frequency of cranial and odontological traits populations included into the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture group do not differ genetically among one another. Therefore these populations cannot be treated as belonging to different ethnocultural systems.2. Populations from the Roman period classified as the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture populations do not differ in terms of frequency of odontological and cranial traits from Western Slavic and Eastern Slavic populations. Thus it cannot be stated that the territory within the Oder and Vistula rivers basin was colonized by Western Slavic populations as late as in the 6th century AD.3. In reference to the discussion on continuity or/and discontinuity of the ethnogenesis process of the Slavs the results of the present study support the model of sociocultural system transformations presented by the concept locating the cradle of the Slavs in the Oder and Vistula river basins and at the turn of the eras.4. Morphological dental traits (non-metrical dental traits) strongly differentiated the compared populations belonging to different ethnocultural systems. Thus they proved to be a good research tool in the analysis of the biological differentiation of skeletal populations.

Conclusions:1. In terms of frequency of cranial and odontological traits populations included into the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture group do not differ genetically among one another. Therefore these populations cannot be treated as belonging to different ethnocultural systems.2. Populations from the Roman period classified as the Wielbark Culture and the Chernyakhov Culture populations do not differ in terms of frequency of odontological and cranial traits from Western Slavic and Eastern Slavic populations. Thus it cannot be stated that the territory within the Oder and Vistula rivers basin was colonized by Western Slavic populations as late as in the 6th century AD.3. In reference to the discussion on continuity or/and discontinuity of the ethnogenesis process of the Slavs the results of the present study support the model of sociocultural system transformations presented by the concept locating the cradle of the Slavs in the Oder and Vistula river basins and at the turn of the eras.4. Morphological dental traits (non-metrical dental traits) strongly differentiated the compared populations belonging to different ethnocultural systems. Thus they proved to be a good research tool in the analysis of the biological differentiation of skeletal populations.

The continuity in Poland (the Wielbark culture) and the Ukraine (Chernyakhov culture) with present day populations is probably more due to the quasi-Baltic tribes (R1a-Z280) from the Pomeranian culture and some R1a-M458 tribes ancestral to the future R1a-L260, and R1a-L1029 subclades). That indigenous population then mixed on the Roman frontier with some Germanic R1b-U106, I1 and I2 which emanated out of the Jastorf culture from present day Northern or Central Germany. The Main Slavic R1a-M458 group was probably just to the East of this area and that would account for their lack of words to describe the Amber trade, and Seafaring, which transversed the Oder and Vistula River basins.